The state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1883-1893, 1887-12-29
THEATRE AND DRAMA.
THE CHILDREN OF THE stsIi4CII
ARE NOW DiSoWSED.
i Student OF Johns Hopkins Replies to
DIR. strong, Holding that the Theatre
is Still a Public Educator.
Especial Cor. STATE CHRONICLE.l


In the Biblical Recorder of Nov. 30th,
there is an article from the pen of DR..
Josiah Strong, author of the celebrated
work, ''Our Country" entitled 1.-The Thea
ire Considered Psychologically A cas-
ual reading of this analysis of the drama,
will leave the impression that the argu-
ments advanced in it are unanswerable;
a closer readinE. however, reveals some
errors which it is the purpose of this ar
tice TO point out.
Let it be understood at the outset that
this paper, like that of DR.. Strong, in no
wise concerns itself with the "accdents"
of the theatre, but has to do only with the
argument regarding its Essential charac-
ter.
The theatre and drama, children Of
Greece, the Mother of Arts, and having at
first as DIR. Strong shows, a certain relig
iDuS significance, need not blush to be re
minded of their origin. But the Romans.
Nho received the institution of the drama
rom the Greeks unmindful of the precious
legacy which was theirs, degraded it to
base uses, so that Religion, which was erst
its foster mother became the enemy Of
her child
Saws Mr. Strong: There are those who
hold that tie drama can be, and as a pop
prestne pnrity and influence; that this
can be- douc unIy BY educating the public
taste, and that it is therefore the duty of
men of high character to give to the thea
tre their patronage But the rise of the
press prevents the theatre from regaining
its aucient dignity or pleading its ancient
justification"
The point is this Among the Greeks,
the ideal Of the drama was primarily in
tellectnal: but no"- the press has, by de
priviug II Of is ancient office, the conmu-
uicatjon Of thought, permanently narrow
ed IFS scope. thus compelling II to address
itself, by means Of an 'artiticial specta-
Gle" to the feelings.
Has the press narrowed the scope Of the
drama by depriving it of its intellectual
Office? Admitting for the moment that this
is true, does it not prove too much: II
the press has done this for the DRAMA has
it not also done the same thing for the
political campaign, the lecture platform,
and. indeed. for the pulpit also: Thv5e Is
nothing, SO far as l can see. peculiar about
the drama as distinguished from Oratory.
whether on platform or in pulpit, which
would make the argument applicable to
70 ba of he
lar press furnishes mental food (Which it
by no means always does, so that il IS no
longer necessary for those in search Of
that article to resort to the theatre, III or
der to procure it, why has NOT the religious
press in the same way, supplanted the
pulpit: Why has it not degraded the
preacher from his high Office as pre-emi-
nentlv teacher? Has it? | would be loath
to admit it, To limited degree it may
be true, but only to limited degree, and
not more Of the one than of the other and,
| | believe. of neither permanently.
| And why? Because men will never tire
| of listening to great thoughts presented to
them by the living, breathing man, wheth
| er orator or actor. The press is great, but
| he who made the press is greater than that
which he has made. The difference in the
| effect produced by thought on the priut-
| ed page and the same thought sent home
| by the actor or orator. is measured by
whatever power there is in human sympa-
| thy Listening to a great speaker We are
| Spellbound On invisible wires between
| the speaker and every listener the cur
rents Of human electricity pass back AND
| forth / he be au orator. we are impell-
| ed To % Y hat he wants Es to do Has he
ONLY moved cur feelings. or has he reached
our inleliects through cur feelings
xhichs You unhesItating1y answer, the
latter Hence | say that the press has
not wholly supplanted the drama as a
| communicator of thought.
| But saws DR.. Strong, ''ltS supreme OBJ
ject is TO present a spectacle. The drama
whether high or low, aims at scenic effect
The object of the drama is tc
| arouse the scnsibllitieS by means Of al
artificial spectacle. Here We touch the
essential oia atter OF the theatre and 1t:
essential evil.
What does he mean by scenic effect
He cannot mean simply that p drama i.
presented to the eye. That wer, a trusn
SO are all works OF art-palntings, ant
sculpture and statuary. They too aim a
'SCenlc c1ect; ana seek also, | "etll q
reach the feelings aye, and the intGllec
through he feelings.
Evidently he refers to what are tech
nicalIy known as spectacular plays, IL
which everything is subOrdInated to elab
crate movable scenery. Even from thes
one can get pure intellectual enjoyment
if so be he can appreciate works OF art
SO realistic was he ocean scene represent
ed on the stage the other evening, that
felt almost as when | looked upon th
rolling waves themselves.
1.-The object of the drama, whether hig
or low, is to produce scenic effect. If h
,, uses scenic effect in the first sense men
. toned, | admit it. That were no mea
ideal 1t would he Oh footing with a
, art But he cannot mean that. If then
as he must, he means scenic effect In tn
second sense mentioned, he is grievousl
in error as to what is the ideal of til
drama. 1t is very easy, in order to dis
parage it, to say that an abuse of th
drama is its ideal. No man i'll love wit
true art could ever grant that to be th
ideal of the drama He can but adm
. that it has, in these last days, been dc
graded, i'll some of its forms at least, frol
S its high ideal. Truly and beautifully ha
E Prof A H. Welsh in his ''Developmer
of English Literature and Language" e.
pressed that ideal ''It were," says h
o ''vain and senseless to attempt to destro
what has sprung from an instructive d.
J. mand of the soul for the incarnate exhib
tlon of the ideals which it trusts an